War on terrorism doomed, US warned

A scathing report published by the Army War College criticises the US's handling of the "war on terrorism", accusing it of taking a detour into an unnecessary war in Iraq and pursuing an unrealistic quest against terrorism that may lead to US wars with nations posing no serious threat.

The report, by Professor Jeffrey Record, of the war college at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, warns that as a result of those mistakes, the US Army is "near breaking point".

The report recommends scaling back the scope of the war on terrorism and instead focusing on the narrower threat posed by the al-Qaeda terrorist network.

"The global war on terrorism as currently defined and waged is dangerously indiscriminate and ambitious, and accordingly . . . its parameters should be readjusted," Professor Record said.

The anti-terrorism campaign was "strategically unfocused, promises more than it can deliver and threatens to dissipate US military resources in an endless and hopeless search for absolute security".

The report was released at a time of heightened criticism and doubt about the war in Iraq.

On Sunday, the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said he did not know whether any weapons of mass destruction would ever be found in Iraq.

Mr Blair told BBC television interviewer the weapons had not been at sites where military chiefs expected to find them and they might never be found.

In a book published today, a former US treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, said he never saw any evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

In an interview with Time magazine, Mr O'Neill said: "In the 23 months I was there, I never saw anything that I would characterise as evidence of weapons of mass destruction."

Professor Record is a veteran defence specialist and author of six books on military strategy and related issues.

The director of the war college's Strategic Studies Institute, Colonel Douglas Lovelace, supported the essay. "I think that the substance Jeff brings out in the article really, really needs to be considered," he said.

Professor Race expected the study to be controversial, but a colleague at the war college added: "He considers it to be under the umbrella of academic freedom."

A Pentagon spokesman, Larry DiRita, said he had not read Professor Record's study. He added: "If the conclusion is that we need to be scaling back in the global war on terrorism, it's not likely to be on my reading list anytime soon."

Many of Professor Record's arguments, such as the contention that Iraq was deterred and did not present a threat, have been made before by critics of the Bush Administration. Iraq, he concludes, "was a war-of-choice distraction from the war of necessity against" al-Qaeda.

However, it is unusual to have such views published by the war college, the US Army's premier academic institution.

Professor Record's chief criticism is that the Administration is biting off more than it can chew.

He likened the US's ambitions in the war on terrorism to Hitler's overreach in World War II. "A cardinal rule of strategy is to keep your enemies to a manageable number," he said. "The Germans were defeated in two world wars because their strategic ends outran their available means."

The essay concluded with several recommendations, including one that the US scale back its ambitions in Iraq and be prepared to settle for a "friendly autocracy" there rather than a genuine democracy.